|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure.
Be the change you want to see in the world. Have engaging discussions instead of copy/pasting links to your own posts for the 60th time.
|
On June 20 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 00:52 Billyboy wrote:On June 20 2026 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So Trump going around saying Meloni begged him for a picture, leading the Italian foreign affairs minister to cancel an official visit.
American diplomacy used to be an iphone, now it’s two rusty cans and a string. When the only European who showed up to your inauguration now hates you, you know you have lots of skill. In his defence who could have predicted that insulting the pope and then personally insulting the leader would not go over well in Italy. Almost as shocking as Iran closing the strait. It was truly an unforced error of monumental proportions when Trump suddenly and apropos of nothing in particular insulted the Pope (a literal American) who had been doing nothing but minding his own business, for no reason whatsoever.
I keep forgetting you are so anti free speech and against the church. Doesn’t the pope know to leave moral arguments to whatever Trump spouts in the moment?
Imagine thinking that people from the country with the most catholics in Europe were going to turn on a foreign moronic leader when he attacked the pope. wtf Italians
|
On June 20 2026 01:32 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. Be the change you want to see in the world. Have engaging discussions instead of copy/pasting links to your own posts for the 60th time.
You’re brave to click on those links, I always assumed they were to sell CBD gummies, male enhancement or some sort of phishing.
|
On June 19 2026 22:43 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2026 22:17 dyhb wrote:On June 19 2026 16:14 Falling wrote:
I really don't understand what you are going on about. Yes, of course they were the men running to become president.
Correct me if I was wrong, but it seemed to me the way you were framing things is that Republicans had tried playing nice by putting up McCain and Romney. They failed and so they felt they needed someone nasty like Trump instead.
My contention is that they were not playing nice at all. Underneath McCain and Romney was a base of supporters who were a boiling cauldron of nasty media and conspiratorial voters. You said those were just randos and creating uneven scales. I don't agree. There was serious momentum behind the birther movement. And the number 1 cable news without many rivals in the alternative media space (Breitbart who were more unhinged) is anything but randos. It goes to intent.
Because I don't think there was any intentionality in 'trying to be nice' by putting up McCain or Romney. Post-Bush and without his VP running, it was pretty wide open. McCain got less than half of the popular primary vote. And given how weak Bush's popularity was, someone who was NOT Bush or associated with his administration was likely to take it. McCain fits that.
I'm sure McCain made lots of mistakes but I think they are mostly irrelevant. Do you really think a Republican had a snowball's chance in hell to win post-Bush post-Iraq (and I forgot about this- the 2008 financial crisis?) No matter who the Democrats put up, it was theirs to lose.
As for 2012. Again, I don't really see intentionality in 'trying to be nice'. It honestly looks like an off year. At least in Canadian politics, certain election cycles the big guns sit out of the leadership race for opposition because the incumbent is too likely to win. (Although if you are good enough, you risk it and win the presumed loss anyways like Carney with a little help from your neighbour threatening some good old fashion annexation.) I’m speaking just on their choices of campaigning. I’m not getting involved in other topics that you are clearly very passionate about. What were the choices?
Romney 2.0
Santorum?
Ron Paul 2.0
Newt Gingrich? meh
I guess you had Rick Perry but he was drawing dead early on. Romney was really the only credible option and he got over 50% of the votes. But even primary voting is down 23M 2008 and 18M 2012. Alternative or supplemental interpretation: it's a little like 2016 for the Democrats. Too many potential contenders felt Clinton (Romney) would have too great an advantage and decided to not even bother... except some quirky, fringe ideologues that decided to fight it out (Sanders/ Paul). But that ended up with not many options for the voters... and a bunch of disillusioned Paul/Sanders fans.
But once Obama is on his way out, boy howdy, everybody came out to play. And Santorum who was one of Romney's main challengers in 2012 is completely lost in the mix. 2016 had a much deeper line up than 2012. And you see it in the votes: 29M in primaries. Republicans saw this as the time to take back the presidency and showed up in numbers. I don’t see the relevance in a slapdash analysis of the other candidates for office. You’re getting out the effort that you’re putting in. How is your analysis on why Trump got elected any different than those that say McCain lost for being against racism and Trump leaning into it? It feels like you have made a presumption and just decided it true. In the first place, because Razyda spoke on the political tactic of calling the other side nazis fascists or paedos. Origins, history, and why it's kinda pointless to be against it now given the origins, history, and who's currently president.
On June 20 2026 01:05 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2026 22:17 dyhb wrote:On June 19 2026 16:14 Falling wrote:
I really don't understand what you are going on about. Yes, of course they were the men running to become president.
Correct me if I was wrong, but it seemed to me the way you were framing things is that Republicans had tried playing nice by putting up McCain and Romney. They failed and so they felt they needed someone nasty like Trump instead.
My contention is that they were not playing nice at all. Underneath McCain and Romney was a base of supporters who were a boiling cauldron of nasty media and conspiratorial voters. You said those were just randos and creating uneven scales. I don't agree. There was serious momentum behind the birther movement. And the number 1 cable news without many rivals in the alternative media space (Breitbart who were more unhinged) is anything but randos. It goes to intent.
Because I don't think there was any intentionality in 'trying to be nice' by putting up McCain or Romney. Post-Bush and without his VP running, it was pretty wide open. McCain got less than half of the popular primary vote. And given how weak Bush's popularity was, someone who was NOT Bush or associated with his administration was likely to take it. McCain fits that.
I'm sure McCain made lots of mistakes but I think they are mostly irrelevant. Do you really think a Republican had a snowball's chance in hell to win post-Bush post-Iraq (and I forgot about this- the 2008 financial crisis?) No matter who the Democrats put up, it was theirs to lose.
As for 2012. Again, I don't really see intentionality in 'trying to be nice'. It honestly looks like an off year. At least in Canadian politics, certain election cycles the big guns sit out of the leadership race for opposition because the incumbent is too likely to win. (Although if you are good enough, you risk it and win the presumed loss anyways like Carney with a little help from your neighbour threatening some good old fashion annexation.) I’m speaking just on their choices of campaigning. I’m not getting involved in other topics that you are clearly very passionate about. What were the choices?
Romney 2.0
Santorum?
Ron Paul 2.0
Newt Gingrich? meh
I guess you had Rick Perry but he was drawing dead early on. Romney was really the only credible option and he got over 50% of the votes. But even primary voting is down 23M 2008 and 18M 2012. Alternative or supplemental interpretation: it's a little like 2016 for the Democrats. Too many potential contenders felt Clinton (Romney) would have too great an advantage and decided to not even bother... except some quirky, fringe ideologues that decided to fight it out (Sanders/ Paul). But that ended up with not many options for the voters... and a bunch of disillusioned Paul/Sanders fans.
But once Obama is on his way out, boy howdy, everybody came out to play. And Santorum who was one of Romney's main challengers in 2012 is completely lost in the mix. 2016 had a much deeper line up than 2012. And you see it in the votes: 29M in primaries. Republicans saw this as the time to take back the presidency and showed up in numbers. I don’t see the relevance in a slapdash analysis of the other candidates for office. You’re getting out the effort that you’re putting in. lol. Why bother quoting my blocks of texts when you could have just wrote 'Nope.' Quite frankly, it looks like I wasted my time as you aren't putting in any effort at all. Because you're going off on tangents, and I wanted to point that out. You have this hypothesis that the greater story is the Republican electorate going in a particular direction during McCain and Romney that make them unrepresentative of the base, despite them being literally the representatives of the Republican party. I salute you on the hypothesis. You likely deserve a conservative Republican to explain what you get right and wrong about the Republican base comparing/contrasting with Republican presidential candidates over 8 years, but we already have had enough of one Dem telling another Dem why the Republican base thinks and acts a certain way. (I can imagine importing into this forum two hardcore MAGA fans explaining to Falling et al why the Democratic base got so radical under Obama, despite all the Obama lofty rhetoric.) I can only tell you that I'm not coming with the same impression as you about people that are unlike you and me, but you'll certainly have to find somebody other than me to write long posts examining that in detail.
|
Canada11607 Posts
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected.
___________________________
The White House website's bios of the presidents in the modern day are a fun read these days.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/walk-of-fame/
Drinking game, how many times can Donald J Trump insert himself into someone else's biography? Also, glad to know America voted in an autopen for president.
|
United States44393 Posts
On June 20 2026 01:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On June 20 2026 00:52 Billyboy wrote:On June 20 2026 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So Trump going around saying Meloni begged him for a picture, leading the Italian foreign affairs minister to cancel an official visit.
American diplomacy used to be an iphone, now it’s two rusty cans and a string. When the only European who showed up to your inauguration now hates you, you know you have lots of skill. In his defence who could have predicted that insulting the pope and then personally insulting the leader would not go over well in Italy. Almost as shocking as Iran closing the strait. It was truly an unforced error of monumental proportions when Trump suddenly and apropos of nothing in particular insulted the Pope (a literal American) who had been doing nothing but minding his own business, for no reason whatsoever. I keep forgetting you are so anti free speech and against the church. Doesn’t the pope know to leave moral arguments to whatever Trump spouts in the moment? Imagine thinking that people from the country with the most catholics in Europe were going to turn on a foreign moronic leader when he attacked the pope. wtf Italians
Well who died and put the Pope in charge of moral philosophy? Other than Jesus obviously.
|
On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there?
Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)?
|
On June 20 2026 01:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On June 20 2026 00:52 Billyboy wrote:On June 20 2026 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So Trump going around saying Meloni begged him for a picture, leading the Italian foreign affairs minister to cancel an official visit.
American diplomacy used to be an iphone, now it’s two rusty cans and a string. When the only European who showed up to your inauguration now hates you, you know you have lots of skill. In his defence who could have predicted that insulting the pope and then personally insulting the leader would not go over well in Italy. Almost as shocking as Iran closing the strait. It was truly an unforced error of monumental proportions when Trump suddenly and apropos of nothing in particular insulted the Pope (a literal American) who had been doing nothing but minding his own business, for no reason whatsoever. I keep forgetting you are so anti free speech and against the church.
It's normal to forget things that aren't true. There's nothing wrong with churches in general but if you meant to capitalize Church then yeah the Catholic one has probably got its share of faults, nobody's perfect.
On June 20 2026 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Doesn’t the pope know to leave moral arguments to whatever Trump spouts in the moment?
So there was an argument started by the Pope? Kind of ruins the "Blumpf attacked hapless innocent Pope" thing. You ought to respect Trump's free speech as you say.
On June 20 2026 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Imagine thinking that people from the country with the most catholics in Europe were going to turn on a foreign moronic leader when he attacked the pope. wtf Italians
Yep that's all fine. POTUS doesn't report to the citizens of Italy and he definitely doesn't report to a religious leader. Even if you're not an atheist you should recognize the importance of secularism, it's kind of basic to the American system. In fact what do you care? Not getting it. You're not American, Italian, are you Catholic? Just spectating? You really are moved an unusual amount by the most random remarks from POTUS.
|
On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim.
The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer.
It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains.
I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way.
|
United States44393 Posts
On June 20 2026 02:36 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim. The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer. It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains. I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way.
You’ve invented this whole alternate history where Democrats would have called Trump a pedophile even if he didn’t constantly go to parties on pedo island with his best friend the pedophile. And so in this history Trump is just returning fire after being attacked. And the attacks don’t really count because even though he does brag about liking them young they would have called him a pedophile anyway so it’s a stopped clock situation.
It’s a fantasy. In the real world Trump gets called a pedophile because of all the pedophilia.
|
On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)?
"I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis
There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge.
|
On June 20 2026 02:36 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim. The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer. It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains. I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way.
I've tried to explain how we went from Romney to Trump before but nobody wants to hear it. Maybe you can't blame them too much. Part of it is that Obama's "hope and change" left such a imprint on the brains and hearts of people of a certain age that you can't really say anything that gets through
Edit: not that the GOP isn't part of why Trump happened, but it's only part of the stumbling block to understanding
|
On June 20 2026 03:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:36 dyhb wrote:On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim. The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer. It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains. I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way. I've tried to explain how we went from Romney to Trump before but nobody wants to hear it. Maybe you can't blame them too much. Part of it is that Obama's "hope and change" left such a imprint on the brains and hearts of people of a certain age that you can't really say anything that gets through Edit: not that the GOP isn't part of why Trump happened, but it's only part of the stumbling block to understanding
Have you tried not saying humiliatingly stupid bullshit almost every time you post like "quoting Hitler to describe immigrants is the moderate position"? Your credibility would go up.
|
On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge.
I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited.
Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't?
|
On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't?
Also, money is addicting. If someone gives you money, and tells you that they will give you more money if you do X, a lot of people will do X instead of not getting more money.
|
On June 20 2026 02:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:36 dyhb wrote:On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim. The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer. It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains. I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way. You’ve invented this whole alternate history where Democrats would have called Trump a pedophile even if he didn’t constantly go to parties on pedo island with his best friend the pedophile. And so in this history Trump is just returning fire after being attacked. And the attacks don’t really count because even though he does brag about liking them young they would have called him a pedophile anyway so it’s a stopped clock situation. It’s a fantasy. In the real world Trump gets called a pedophile because of all the pedophilia. I’m sure it’s a comforting fiction to you to reduce this all to Trump and Epstein. I’m absolutely loving the “constantly go to parties on pedo island,” because the last I heard the most rabid anti-Trump loon can’t even place Trump on the island at any time ever. Its like you start with a true premise of how bad Trump is, and demand that as license to just spout off nonsense (confident that good people will never call you on it!)
On June 20 2026 03:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:36 dyhb wrote:On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim. The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer. It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains. I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way. I've tried to explain how we went from Romney to Trump before but nobody wants to hear it. Maybe you can't blame them too much. Part of it is that Obama's "hope and change" left such a imprint on the brains and hearts of people of a certain age that you can't really say anything that gets through Edit: not that the GOP isn't part of why Trump happened, but it's only part of the stumbling block to understanding The pathway to Trump happened over a decade ago. I'm guessing that the opinions on how that happened have ossified at least eight years ago. I think this is a job for historians 30-50 years from now when Trump, Obama, and Romney are dead and gone.
|
On June 20 2026 02:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 01:35 Billyboy wrote:On June 20 2026 01:09 oBlade wrote:On June 20 2026 00:52 Billyboy wrote:On June 20 2026 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So Trump going around saying Meloni begged him for a picture, leading the Italian foreign affairs minister to cancel an official visit.
American diplomacy used to be an iphone, now it’s two rusty cans and a string. When the only European who showed up to your inauguration now hates you, you know you have lots of skill. In his defence who could have predicted that insulting the pope and then personally insulting the leader would not go over well in Italy. Almost as shocking as Iran closing the strait. It was truly an unforced error of monumental proportions when Trump suddenly and apropos of nothing in particular insulted the Pope (a literal American) who had been doing nothing but minding his own business, for no reason whatsoever. I keep forgetting you are so anti free speech and against the church. It's normal to forget things that aren't true. There's nothing wrong with churches in general but if you meant to capitalize Church then yeah the Catholic one has probably got its share of faults, nobody's perfect. Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Doesn’t the pope know to leave moral arguments to whatever Trump spouts in the moment? So there was an argument started by the Pope? Kind of ruins the "Blumpf attacked hapless innocent Pope" thing. You ought to respect Trump's free speech as you say. Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 01:35 Billyboy wrote:
Imagine thinking that people from the country with the most catholics in Europe were going to turn on a foreign moronic leader when he attacked the pope. wtf Italians Yep that's all fine. POTUS doesn't report to the citizens of Italy and he definitely doesn't report to a religious leader. Even if you're not an atheist you should recognize the importance of secularism, it's kind of basic to the American system. In fact what do you care? Not getting it. You're not American, Italian, are you Catholic? Just spectating? You really are moved an unusual amount by the most random remarks from POTUS.
You are so extremely bad at this. It’s just on the last page, go find me calling the pope hapless or innocent.
The pope made comments he is expected to make, Trump proved them true and people that are not in your cult of stupidity made the reasonable choice of picking the pope over Trump. That it offends you is fucking weird. Dood you smack of one creepy guy.
|
On June 20 2026 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:57 LightSpectra wrote:On June 20 2026 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:44 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 20 2026 00:09 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:A Democratic Socialist has jumped ahead of a Democrat that's been in office since the challenger was born. A Democratic socialist born in 1997 is threatening to unseat a veteran Democrat who first took office in 1997.
In Colorado’s first congressional district, 29-year-old Melat Kiros leads corporate-backed 30-year incumbent Diana DeGette by five points, according to a new poll.
The survey, by Data for Progress, finds Kiros leading DeGette 41% to 36%. The poll was conducted on behalf of Justice Democrats, a progressive super PAC backing Kiros’s campaign, and the American Priorities PAC.
The poll comes as outside cash floods into the Denver race. Super PACs linked to the real estate lobby, the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, and the Democratic establishment – and some that have seemed to emerge out of nowhere – have all descended into the race in support of DeGette, and against Kiros.
The race echoes dynamics playing out in Democratic primaries across the country: a progressive challenger, channeling pent-up voter frustration at the old-guard, pitching a momentous bid against an incumbent or party-friendly candidate. zeteo.comIt'll be interesting to see how establishment Democrats handle this increasing trend of voters recognizing them as oppositional to their own ostensible ideals. Sounds like you’re pushing a reformist narrative where non performing elected officials can be challenged within existing party structures. The problem with this kind of reformist narrative is that it excuses inaction, it turns waiting for change into a virtue. When direct action is required to destroy the hostile power structures there are always voices crying out “why not simply reform them gradually over time”. But in practice it’s simply another voice calling for the status quo, you’re either a revolutionary or you’re a counterrevolutionary. This is a classic example of reformist propaganda. If you think about it the people trying to make things better within the system are the worst of all, they know how bad the system is and they’re choosing to co opt and undermine the opposition to that system and turn it into just another layer of control. For that reason I regret to inform you that you were directly and personally involved in genocide (unspecified). But for a world where you actually believed and vociferously argued this with others here. The thread would be a lot more interesting, that's for sure. + Show Spoiler +What a lot of people don't understand is that people trying to make things better are the enemy because by trying to make things better within a broken system they're just propping up that system and allowing it to harm even more people. That is why I reserve all my criticism for helpers and never criticize bad actors, like Ronald Reagan. By which I mean I, like Reagan (great actor btw), reserve all my criticism for helpers.
I'm glad you think that this kind of contribution makes the thread more interesting though. There was a risk of there being an actual discussion of Kiros and her policies vs the incumbent + Show Spoiler +and I didn't want to allow that. Not when there was a high horse with nobody riding it and genocide taking place. Was there? Taking AIPAC money is something dyhb (iirc) has mentioned and an ongoing debate among these factions. What are people's thoughts on that (or any of the policy differences between them or these factions generally)? "I'll take any motherfucker's money if he givin' it away." -- Clay Davis There's no legal obligation to do what a lobbyist/PAC asked for after taking their money. It's more important to look at platform and voting/policy history, although for relatively blank slate candidates in primaries, who they take donations might be the only information you have to judge. I generally lean toward "take any money" myself, but... I think the Newsom example kinda encapsulates the way this can be exploited. Legal obligations aside, do we have any notable examples of a politician "betraying" so to speak their lobbyists and PACs after taking their money? Or is it something that ostensibly "could" happen but doesn't?
Brad Lander has acknowledged taking money from pro-Israel PACs but is primarying Dan Goldman because Lander is pro-Palestine
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/lander-goldman-israel-nyc-primary.html
|
On June 20 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 02:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 02:36 dyhb wrote:On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim. The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer. It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains. I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way. You’ve invented this whole alternate history where Democrats would have called Trump a pedophile even if he didn’t constantly go to parties on pedo island with his best friend the pedophile. And so in this history Trump is just returning fire after being attacked. And the attacks don’t really count because even though he does brag about liking them young they would have called him a pedophile anyway so it’s a stopped clock situation. It’s a fantasy. In the real world Trump gets called a pedophile because of all the pedophilia. I’m sure it’s a comforting fiction to you to reduce this all to Trump and Epstein. I’m absolutely loving the “constantly go to parties on pedo island,” because the last I heard the most rabid anti-Trump loon can’t even place Trump on the island at any time ever. Its like you start with a true premise of how bad Trump is, and demand that as license to just spout off nonsense (confident that good people will never call you on it!)
Why is it so easy for Trump supporters to believe in conspiracy theories like "a pizza restaurant with no basement was harvesting adrenochromes in its basement", but it's inconceivable that a billionaire who said that Jeffrey Epstein was a "terrific guy," and added, "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side" in 2002,
who bragged about walking into the changing room of underage beauty pageants,
who gave Ghislaine Maxwell well wishes several times after she had already been indicted for trafficking Epstein's sex slaves and has suggested he will pardon her,
who gave a cabinet position to the prosecutor responsible for Epstein's sweetheart deal,
who literally bought a girl from Epstein,
who begged Republican Congressmen to not release the Epstein files which contain his name thousands of times,
who claimed he was never on Epstein's jet before it was discovered he was many times,
would've had sex with one of his trafficked girls?
|
On June 20 2026 03:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2026 03:24 dyhb wrote:On June 20 2026 02:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2026 02:36 dyhb wrote:On June 20 2026 02:01 Falling wrote:
If your claim (which you have yet to correct my characterization, so I'm assuming at this point is a fair reading) is that it was only after Obama that Republicans learned to fight back, then it's not a tangent to bring up examples of the fight occurring before your proposed timeline.
As it is, I don't think you've actually established your claim as to the very specific intention you gave voters for why McCain and Romney got elected. No, that's way stronger of a claim. The polite, restrained, yet losing campaigns of McCain and Romney led directly to Trump's "get down with them in the mud/throw it right back at 'em" style of politics. Now that Trump is engaged in the Republican versions of nazi/fascist/pedo smears, it makes little sense to call out Democrats on it. I think your only direct response on the historical record and what I drew from the historical record was "Probably?," so I think you did give me an answer. It's not that "Republicans learned to fight back," they were always fighting for elections and won in 2000 and 2004. The mud wrestling wasn't new, it was just new to Presidential candidates in recent times. Obama had some veiled stuff on bitter clingers and rising above division, but it was only his allies that said McCain's rallies were like George Wallace the white-supremacist segregationist or Romney would put y'all [African Americans] back in chains. I want to stress to you, re-reading your posts, that debating the historical record and what that leads me to believe is true is radically different than condoning how it was done or whether people at the time were right for thinking about the issues that way. You’ve invented this whole alternate history where Democrats would have called Trump a pedophile even if he didn’t constantly go to parties on pedo island with his best friend the pedophile. And so in this history Trump is just returning fire after being attacked. And the attacks don’t really count because even though he does brag about liking them young they would have called him a pedophile anyway so it’s a stopped clock situation. It’s a fantasy. In the real world Trump gets called a pedophile because of all the pedophilia. I’m sure it’s a comforting fiction to you to reduce this all to Trump and Epstein. I’m absolutely loving the “constantly go to parties on pedo island,” because the last I heard the most rabid anti-Trump loon can’t even place Trump on the island at any time ever. Its like you start with a true premise of how bad Trump is, and demand that as license to just spout off nonsense (confident that good people will never call you on it!) Why is it so easy for Trump supporters to believe in conspiracy theories like "a pizza restaurant with no basement was harvesting adrenochromes in its basement", but it's inconceivable that a billionaire who said that Jeffrey Epstein was a "terrific guy," and added, "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side", who bragged about walking into the changing room of underage beauty pageants, who gave Ghislaine Maxwell well wishes several times after she had already been indicted for trafficking Epstein's sex slaves, who gave a cabinet position to the prosecutor responsible for Epstein's sweetheart deal, would've had sex with one of his trafficked girls? I'll note that this is in no way a defense of "constantly go to parties on pedo island," and you should probably answer that and then spend a little extra time reading that snopes link. I swear, every one of you here has abundant opportunity to limit yourself to true and damaging things, but that isn't enough for you all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
